Southwest Shakespeare, Arizona’s leading producer of classical theater, has been entertaining audiences since 1994. But whether the show can go on depends on surviving a cash-flow crisis.

Here is where Mesa can help.

The company’s officials say they need $55,000 or they may have to cancel production of plays and perhaps close.

The City Council should at least be willing to pay for a portion of this need.

There are precedents for emergency help.

For starters, Mesa used to give the theatrical company a $40,000 annual stipend until hard times hit several years ago.

Also, City Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh, a big arts supporters who sits on Southwest Shakespeare’s advisory board, suggests city contingency funds could be available for help. Such funds were used to help businesses along Main Street survive light-rail construction.

To receive funding again on a more permanent basis, the company needs to come up with a realistic budget-and-revenue plan, then demonstrate it can stay with the plan.

Jared Sakren, Southwest Shakespeare’s artistic director, has said the company is working on a “survive and thrive” campaign designed to raise $300,000 over the next several months.

As reported by TheRepublic’s Gary Nelson, Kavanaugh says the group survived the loss of its city subsidy because of corporate donors and other grants.

“Many troupes, Southwest Shakespeare included, have done a very good job of increasing their earned income through ticket sales,” he said. “What has really dramatically dropped in the last couple of years ... is corporate sponsorship and grant funding from other foundations.”

The Arizona Commission on the Arts, Kavanaugh said, has been starved of state general-fund appropriations and now can pass on money it receives only from the federal National Endowment for the Arts.

Let’s hope the city and Southwest Shakespeare can work together to get through the short-term problems and find long-term solvency.

Republican state Senator Jerry Lewis, winner of last year’s historic recall election over incumbent state Senate President Russell Pearce, was defeated last month. The race had Lewis facing fellow incumbent Ed Ableser in a reconfigured Southeast Valley legislative district that leaned toward Democrats. The Republic recently talked with Lewis about the whirlwind of events for him over the past year.

Question: Were you surprised by the election results?

Answer: I was. I thought it would be closer. I thought it would be real tight. I don’t know what happened, other than he got more votes than I did.

Q: It seemed to be more or less a party-line vote.

A: I wish I had a dime for every Democrat who said, “Hey, I’m voting for you.” A lot of people said, “I’m voting for the person, not the party.”

We feel good, though. We ran a clean campaign. We stuck by our promise that we wouldn’t throw mud. We didn’t.

We had some headed in our direction from quite a few sources.

Q: The other side was saying you weren’t much different than a “tea party” Republican. Did that gnaw at you?

A: It didn’t gnaw at me. It wasn’t true. It was humorous actually to me to have me hanging by a marionette’s string cast as a tea-party puppet.

But ... no hard feelings. I don’t harbor any feelings at all for anybody.

Q: The margin was ...

A: About 11 percent. About 3,500 votes.

Q: Some people split their tickets but not nearly enough for you.

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you think there should be more competitive districts. There are six in the Southeast Valley, and none are particularly close.

A: To the extent it’s possible to do geographically and demographically, the more competitive the districts, the greater the chance of having accountability from the elected official and responsiveness to the constituents.

If they can get in with the majority of their own party and landslide it, well, they don’t have to listen to the other side. They should. But human nature’s tendency is not to. To the extent we can make those districts more competitive, I would be all in favor of that. It serves the constituents a lot better.

Unfortunately, some people need to be forced to do the right thing. They want to do what’s right but it’s too easy to say, “I have to take care of my primary election.”

One of the biggest concerns I feel from people as I talk with them is that we’ve gone so far to partisan politics that we’ve lost the people, the constituents. We do what’s right for the party but not for the people they represent. That’s a fact of our political scene.

It was one of the reasons I got into this stuff in the first place, to see if we could show it was more important to vote for a person who has the integrity, the leadership skills and the ability to be the right leader at the time, rather than to be in the right party. To show you don’t have to attack your opponent. You can attack issues instead.

You don’t need this constant berating of our opponents in a campaign. That we can really show the voters we can get along and we can solve the tough problems that face us in a way that will be more permanent, that resonate with the principals that we all share rather than the principals that one party shares.

Q: You have a niche, maybe not only in the Southeast Valley or in Arizona, but in American history. As far as anyone knows, you are the only person alive or dead who has taken on and defeated a sitting state Senate president in a recall election.

That was the word at the time. Have you learned differently?

A: I have not. I have heard a lot of people say the tone of the Senate and the whole Legislature changed dramatically from 2011 to 2012 (after the recall election). People who are down there permanently, staffers, said there was a much happier feel, a more progressive feel.

But there’s still a lot of partisanship that I think stands in the way of true solutions, permanent solutions to certain problems.

Q: Did anybody give you a chance to win the recall election outside of your family?

A: No (laughs). I felt we had a chance to win or I wouldn’t have done it.

The image that was being painted of Arizona took us from being known as the Grand Canyon State, to the SB1070 State or the pink-underwear state. I think that hurt us a lot.

Many will deny this. But the people who are willing to be honest, who go outside Arizona, or live outside Arizona, you say Arizona, and they say, “Weird” or “1070” or “Sheriff Joe” whereas 10 or 15 years ago, they said, “Grand Canyon.”

I believe it cost us economically. I think as bad, it divided us politically into extreme polar views that are going to take a while to bring back together so we can work effectively. I wish the best for my colleagues that they will work together and truly get about the business of governing this state the way it should be governed.

Q: Was there a point where you realized that you really could do this?

A: There were a lot of things happening that gave us a lot of impetus, that torpedoed their campaign, certainly the Olivia Cortez scandal.

Q: The fake candidate?

A: Yeah.

Q: His supporters recruited a fake candidate.

A: Yeah, that, I think, turned a lot of people off.

Q: Anything you would like to pass on to people who might be thinking of running for office as a moderate?

A: Be strong and have courage. It’s worth it. It really is. Undoubtedly there will be fabrications and attacks. There will be all kinds of deceptive rhetoric. You can count on it. Just don’t drink it. Don’t inhale it.

If you believe you can make a difference and you’re willing to work hard, not just during the campaign but to show up for every single vote, to listen to your constituents, to attend their events, to meet with the city and the education and business leaders, to really understand what’s going on.

Don’t let the mudslinging that’s probably going to happen deter you from going forward. We need people of character to step up.

Don’t be deterred by the threats and attacks on your integrity, on your persona.

Q: Anything about the system, the way the Legislature works that could be better?

A: We need to work with people of all points of view. That’s what people expect of us.

Residents near Baseline and Gilbert roads, in both Mesa and Gilbert, should have no trouble getting mobile-phone service if Mesa officials approve a 70-foot cellphone tower in their neighborhood.

Many residents, of course, would rather do without the tower, even though it would be camouflaged as a palm tree. And we don’t blame them.

As neighborhood spokesman David Brown suggested, who would want a structure nearby that’s twice as tall as any other in the area? That’s surely not what people had in mind when they bought in the neighborhood.

The Mesa Board of Adjustment, the only public body with authority in the matter, wisely postponed a decision until AT&T officials can meet with residents.

Some of the homeowners felt blind-sided by the proposal. Notifications didn’t arrive until around Nov.1; some people evidently mistook the notices for junk mail and never bothered to read up on the matter.

As reported by The Republic’s Luci Scott, Brown said, “This would be an enormous structure; the height would not be contextual with this neighborhood.”

He added that the tower would decrease home values. “Any home close to a cellphone tower immediately diminishes in value, and potential buyers ... might like the home, but if you see a cellphone tower, you’re going to go someplace else.”

The tower would be built in a vacant lot at 2136 E.Baseline Road, north of businesses on Baseline and south of a neighborhood along Jacinto Avenue.

Although only those residents within 500 feet of the tower are legally required to be notified, Brown said, “This tower, however camouflaged as a palm tree, will have an effect beyond 500 feet.”

City Councilman Dennis Kavanagh had also written a letter to the board asking for a continuance.

The project’s architect, Michael Fries, told the board that the tower is necessary to provide cellphone coverage.

He said three potential sites had been identified but that at the other locations, either zoning wasn’t possible or the landlord declined to negotiate. “Of the three sites, this is the farthest from a residential neighborhood,” he said.

The tower would be disguised with palm fronds, and AT&T proposes adding three live palm trees nearby.

Even so, the board would be wise to ask AT&T to try harder to find a more suitable, non-residential location — and there are many commercial-industrial sites along Baseline Road — for the tower at its meeting on Dec.11.

Frontier Airlines is up and running at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. We offer a heartfelt welcome.

The airline’s much-anticipated arrival is big for several reasons:

Frontier has a hub in Denver. And that means people throughout the United States now can get to and from the Southeast Valley with one stop.

The addition of Frontier — to the previously flying Spirit and Allegiant — gives more credence to the argument that Gateway stands as the nation’s best model of how to convert an old military base to civilian use.

Gateway, which now has non-stop flights to 38 cities, is handling more than 1million passengers per year, more than 3.8million travelers since passenger service began in October 2007.

The booming airport may well become the signature for a Southeast Valley that is more and more forging an identity separate from the rest of the metro Phoenix area.

As reported by TheRepublic’s Luci Scott, Frontier will fly seven days a week, arriving in Mesa from Denver at 3:03p.m. and departing back to the Mile-High City at 3:45p.m.

The inaugural flights to and from Denver were sold out with 138 passengers on each flight on the Airbus319.

These developments offer further proof that the airport’s operations should come first, way above pressures for residential development in the area, in how local decision-makers set their priorities.

Those pressures already exist. The recovering economy assures they will only increase.

Only a few years ago, some aviation “experts” doubted the viability of a second, significant airport in the Valley. Now, everyone who remotely pays attention knows that such an airport exists.

Gateway is the ticket to furthering economic growth, convenience, price competition among airlines and an identity for the entire Southeast Valley.

Fulton Brock is leaving the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors after 16 years in office. Here are excerpts of a recent Republic interview with him on his experiences.

Question: Your most memorable experience?

Answer: I was sitting right beside (fellow Supervisor) Mary Rose Wilcox (in 1997) when she was shot. (The assailant) had been estranged from his family. He came to Phoenix and was living in the river bottom. He had only a few possessions, a pistol, a radio and a couple of tin cups.

He was listening to the radio all day long. There were some local talk-radio people who had become so angry that we had passed a small stadium tax. It was very controversial. This person became so brainwashed from all the negativity from all that that he actually brought a gun to a meeting. He allowed Mary Rose to get up and start out of the room.

He actually stuck the gun in her back and pulled the trigger. When he was getting ready to shoot, the guard knocked his hands down, and he shot her in the hip. The bullet exploded into her buttock, hamstring and down into her calf.

I was the first one to her. I actually held the guy who shot her and held Mary Rose in my other arm. I said, “You are not going anywhere.” I had him around the neck. His gun was on the floor. I had Mary Rose around the waist. She was starting to bleed profusely and was going into shock.

Nobody would assist because everybody was scared. It seemed like an eternity before anyone came to assist.

That was a day I’ll never forget.

Q: What have you learned about county government?

A: We have been able to position this county to be one of the best run in America. We have attempted to excel and achieve and run it as efficiently as we can.

When I came in 1997, Maricopa County was broken. We didn’t have any money. We were technically bankrupt.

We had to change our fiscal policy. We had to do massive cuts. One thing I learned, it does not require tax increases and cutting at the same time.

We also went out to listen to people. We worked carefully with the other seven elected offices.

I’m proud of the fact that... we’ve added 1.5million people since I’ve been in office and our employee head count has remained the same. We’ve been steady at 13,000.

We’ve moved the county from a really scary financial situation to where ... we don’t have any debt. In April, we paid $260some million in cash for a courts building that should last 75 to 100 years.

Q: As for Sheriff Arpaio, how frustrating was that situation, and how much did that wear on you?

A: It’s been very difficult. The situation got out of hand about four years ago. The former county attorney (Andrew Thomas) and the Sheriff’s department teamed up against several administrators, staff and put some 30 some people under criminal investigation. I was one of those.

They launched a series of lawsuits against the Board of Supervisors. They accused us of anything they could contrive. Ultimately, there was never a shred of evidence, never one ounce of legitimate claims in any of their lawsuits. It ended up wasting taxpayers’ tens of millions of dollars in defense of the county attorney.

The chief deputy of the Sheriff’s department was finally released. (Various officials) are bringing multimillion-dollar suits against the county for wrecking their careers. Mary Rose got a million dollars. The board elected not to settle. So, she is being paid penalties that are added on until it’s appealed and resolved. (Supervisor) Don Stapley still has a major claim against the Sheriff’s Office and the county for his false arrest, not once but twice.

It was very bad. I would call it Gestapo bad, where anyone who dared create any opposition to the sheriff or county attorney was either arrested or put under investigation.

It reminded me of the Huey Long days in Louisiana back in the 1920s or the Tammany Hall days of at the turn of the century in New York City. We have seen anything like this for... years in the United States of America.

Q: A lot of people thought the federal investigation that ended in early September would result in the indictments of Thomas and Arpaio. Were you surprised that this did not happen?

A: Shocking is a better description that the federal investigation was dropped. It flabbergasted me.

Q: How much did your family problems weigh on your decision to step down and retire.

A: I think it’s important that everybody put their priorities in place. My family is my first priority. I was married almost 30 years. It was a very difficult challenge. It’s still a challenge, ongoing. I have two daughters at home. I think it was time for me to pass the baton. I’m leaving a county that’s strong.

I’ve taken the county about as far as I could.

We have a budget bigger than 19 states, about $2.5billion. I’m proud we’re able to run our government efficiently. We’ve kept the size of government in check the last 16 years. I’m ready to hand it off.

Q: Do you have any advice for your successor, Denny Barney?

A: I’d say concentrate on running the county well and being efficient, but at the same time, remember the poor and the homeless and the seriously mentally ill who are on the street. The county jail has turned into the largest repository of the seriously mentally ill in the state because the state doesn’t fund mental health very well.

We need programs that divert people away from drugs and crime. ... I’m very proud of our Alpha drug treatment program in our county jails.

We need to focus on keeping kids in school and away from gangs.

“Reading to the Stars” is where we bring sports figures into the schools, people from Intel, who take an interest in these kids, take them to ball games, read with them. ...

The cost of going through the justice system is expensive. Staffing positions are expensive. If we can prevent someone from going into the justice system by pointing them away from crime and gangs, it’s about 100 times cheaper.

Watch the bottom line, take care of the staff, strive to be No.1 in everything we do.

Residents of Mesa and the Southeast Valley are getting to see history relived.

As reported by The Republic’s Gary Nelson, Mesa Councilwoman Dina Higgins, who chairs the sustainability and transportation committee, gave Mesa resident Virginia Salas the floor recently to discuss what she called “the awful truth” about fluoridated drinking water.

Really? This is the same issue we thought Mesa voters settled — overwhelmingly — in 2000, when a ballot proposition aimed at prohibiting fluoridation lost 62 to 38 percent.

Higgins said it was time to revisit the issue, noting that it has recently surfaced in Phoenix and Gilbert, where city officials failed to properly fluoridate the water supply for a year, and saying the meeting was for informational purposes only.

Actually, the meeting seems to have been staged for political purposes, with Higgins trying to court a far-right segment of the electorate.

Council committee meetings usually draw a sparse audience, but the lower council chamber was nearly full for this show.

As reported by Nelson, Salas delivered a detailed PowerPoint and a 15-minute lecture, alleging that fluoride is a toxic waste being pumped into public supplies at the behest of public-health groups under the influence of big-business money.

“Fluoridation is a violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medication,” she said. “It’s time for our city to stop fluoridating our water.”

The fluoride flare-up is a case of paranoia vs. established science. Fluoride has been called one of the 10 great public-health achievements of the 20th century by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Gary Jones, a Mesa dentist who led opposition to the 2000 initiative, defended the practice, saying: “I have looked at all sides of the issue. If you look at the respected scientific studies in this United States, throughout the world, they continually recognize the benefits of dental fluoridation.”

Jack Dillenberg, former director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, said, “I have been in public health my entire professional life. ... There is no way on this Earth that I would promote anything that I felt would injure, damage or hurt any citizen, any child.”

Mesa long has been a big city, one that should have moved way beyond fringe issues decades ago.

The city is fortunate to have a visionary mayor and a City Council dominated by competent people who are dedicated to the public interest.

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.